'Asses in (Car) Seats' vs. Management

Consultant Gleb Tsipursky recently examined the latest iteration of what I like to call the "Asses in Seats" method of management: Using the commutes of the people one should be managing as proof-of-work.

Tipursky's analysis is quite thoughtful. For example, he considers gains in productivity seen with working from home during the pandemic and the more recent use of artificial intelligence, and offers, for example, that good use of AI requires focus -- which is often superior at home and away from the distractions of an office.

At the same time, Tipursky recommends judicious use of in-office "anchor days" for those things, like mentoring or collaboration, that work better in person.

Overall, he makes a good case for a more active evaluation of output and how different environments affect different kinds of work.

As if the positive motivation of having a choice of work environments at one's disposal weren't enough, Tipursky cautions against the movement towards full-time office work because subordiantes are hardly powerless:

[Fully onsite] policies may fit some cultures and business constraints. But executives should admit they are making a bet, not simply following settled science.

The labor-market effects make the bet riskier. Employees often value flexible work because it returns time, reduces commute friction, and lets people handle life logistics with less daily stress. In Bloom's Trip.com trial, the reduction in quits was especially visible among women, non-managers and long commuters. That should get the attention of every leader facing skill shortages, retention problems or rising compensation demands. A hard office mandate can quietly convert a productivity question into a talent leakage problem. [bold added]

I found his arguments compelling and hope the "hybrid model built around results instead of rituals" he advocates catches on.

-- CAV

A Rogues' Gallery of 'Net Zero' Apostates

"This is just the pure religious nature of the climate catastrophist movement. It has one commandment: 'thou shalt not impact nature.' They just think that everything good is a happy climate god and everything bad is a vengeful climate god." -- Alex Epstein

***

According to John Stossel, world leaders and corporations who once backed Net Zero are "ditching" that foolhardy and dangerous policy, some more quietly than others:

Now, countries like Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom are walking back their net-zero push.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz now says rules must "better align climate targets, market realities, companies and jobs."

He also said, "It was quite simply a strategic mistake to phase out nuclear energy."

No kidding.

And here in America, I hear less climate fearmongering.

The Washington Post reports, "analysis of lawmakers' appearances and posts on social media show they are going quiet on climate."

"It's very surprising to many people," says [author Alex] Epstein, "how unserious the climate catastrophists were about net zero, and the way you can see this is what's happened with the rise of AI."

Tech companies now report increases in emissions, even though "five years ago, they were all telling us: 'climate change, existential crisis, got to go net zero!'" Epstein laughs. [bold added]

I was glad Stossel interviewed Alex Epstein for this piece, since the good news he delivers deserves good analysis. Epstein holds that we're in a better intellectual environment, but is quick to point out the fact that so many people who once pushed Net Zero seem to have memory-holed their past actions.

I wouldn't say climate catastrophism is dead, but it is in a real retreat worldwide, rather than just superficially looking that way in the United States because the current President has slightly hindered it, and tends to suck all of the oxygen away from other news.

-- CAV

Midterms: Peril for Trump, Senate in Play

Michael Tomasky of The New Republic predicts a "tidal wave" against Trump in this fall's midterms.

I am skeptical of a tidal wave: Gerrymandering will mute the bloodbath Trump deserves, and might save his party in one or both chambers of Congress, but Tomasky has successfully defied the conventional wisdom in the past:

... I've also been right before. In 1998, for example, everybody -- I mean everybody -- was saying that Bill Clinton's Democrats were going to lose umpteen seats in that year's midterms, because the elections took place in the wake of the revelations that Clinton had had a sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, and all the smart people knew that the voters were going to rise in fury to smite him and the louche Democrats who were defending him. The Republicans, in the majority already, were surely going to pick up another 20, 30 seats.

Not so fast, said I. Because the polls were showing clearly, to anyone who bothered to study them, that the public was more disgusted with House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his morality police -- Gingrich's mistress at the time, by the way, is now my and your official American representative to the Holy See in the Vatican -- than with Clinton and his very human, if gross, weaknesses.

I just sniffed the zeitgeist and sensed the conventional wisdom was dead wrong (in the end, the Democrats gained five House seats that year). This year, that same olfactory sense is telling me, dare I write it, that November 3 may be even worse for the Republicans than the conventional wisdom now predicts. There are three groups of voters who matter in this election, and each of them is going to punish Trump severely. [bold added]

Tomasky is, of course, a leftist, so you'll get the obligatory psychological projection and condescension towards voters to the right of Stalin as part of "MAGA-land" -- and you will get to mark your bingo card slot for data centers bad.

That said, I think Tomasky's got a point about each of the three groups he sees in the polls, even if his grasp of their motivations is a little suspect.

Were I to recast what he came up with:

1. Anyone who never liked Trump will feel particularly motivated to show up and vote.
2. Swing voters who believed that Trump could be good for the economy will vote heavily against his party.
3. Racists and other MAGA-adjacent voters will be disenchanted, and so much less likely to turn out than they were for the presidential election.

I think Tomasky is right about (1) and mostly so about (2). He may underestimate Trump's ability to get a tune out of the groups in (3), though.

(The alarming prominence of democratic socialists in the Democratic Party will play right into Trump's hands. That said, I'd be a fan of Trump if I were a "progressive:" Trump is doing some of their dirty work and setting them up to win in 2028.)

The rest of Tomasky's piece consists of (1) his explanation for why he doubts Trump can reframe things in time to save his party, and (2) comments about a few races that wouldn't be as interesting as they are if only a normal person went to the White House back in '24.

Oh, and Tomasky isn't the only one talking about unexpectedly tight races in red states.

-- CAV

Vote Early and in Person

Donald Trump's looniness about elections is both red meat for his base and a pretext for doing whatever he thinks he can get away with to "find the votes" he wants in the next election. Accordingly, his legislative efforts at "reform" should serve as a shot across the bow.

It does not nelp at all to hear that DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin is now offering the kind of "reassurance" that sounds like a threat. Namely, he says that ICE agents might show up at polling places on Election Day -- but just to address "threats" to said polling places, or to serve warrants.

Knowing Trump's hostility to voting by people who look like they might be foreign, and to voting by mail, it might be worth considering how to hedge one's bets this November.

Fortunately, Washington Monthly has put out some guidance. Here are its main points, which the article elaborates upon:

• Vote early in person.
• Encourage your friends and neighbors to vote. Help people get to the polls.
• Record and report.

The advice concerning recording voter intimidation is particularly valuable, as it includes how to spot intimidation, how to comport oneself, and what to do with any evidence. The piece also wisely cautions against "do[ing] the administration's work" by panicking or overhyping the risk.

-- CAV

Blog Roundup

A Friday Hodgepodge

1. "One Contradiction in the Fear of Laissez-Faire," by Harry Binswanger (Value for Value):

The operative image of economic regulation is that of a huge truck without steering or brakes. "We have to have those instruments of control, or the truck will go careening off the side of a cliff."

The truth is that government regulation is precisely the cutting of the brake lines and the seizing up of the steering column.

790 words/3 minutes

2. "Is Capitalism Scary?," by Jaana Woiceshyn (How to Be Profitable and Moral):

Productive work also yields savings that can be invested to provide extra cushioning against life's vicissitudes. Taking private insurance against accidents, illness and disability adds extra protection. (Those who are truly unable to support themselves, save, and afford insurance, must rely on private charity -- that historical evidence has shown to flourish in the conditions of freedom and the absence of government welfare programs).

850 words/3 minutes

3. "Trump, Iran and Moral Discriminations," by Peter Schwartz (Peter Schwartz):

An effective foreign policy must make moral discriminations. It must identify the nature of a country that is an enemy, and the nature of a country that is a friend. Merely looking at a country's weaponry cannot guide us. Nuclear bombs in the hands of Iran or North Korea are very different from nuclear bombs in the hands of England or France. Just as the guns possessed by criminals call for a very different evaluation than do guns possessed by the police.

440 words/1 minute

4. "The Thinker Identity (Part 1)," by Jean Moroney (Thinking Directions):

The Thinker is the person who makes full use of the power of his mind. He takes theory and applies it in practice. He observes practice and conceptualizes his observations into new theory. He has an active mind in that he is always observing the world around him, always integrating new knowledge with the old, always looking for the root causes that explain the results he sees. He does this in every area of his life, managing his mind by exploiting his volition, his values, and his knowledge.

This identity does not require a particular degree of intelligence or level of education. Rather, it ensures that you will continually increase your functional intelligence and become self-educated in every area that matters to you.

1130 words/4 minutes

-- CAV

RE: 'Where are all the dead bodies?'

The saying extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence can be a guardian against being mislead, but only when one recognizes a claim as being extraordinary.

That can be harder than it seems, as a recent Dr. Nerdlove reply to a young man (who has let the "manosphere" convince him he has no romantic prospects) indicates:

The reason why it hurts and upsets you is because you hear it over and over, and that has a way of settling in as being "true". So the first step is to see if it's even true in the first place, but the second step is to stop giving them any oxygen at all. Once you start cutting those voices out of your daily life and start going out and actually interacting with people in person, you'll be amazed at how much better you feel and how much the real world doesn't resemble the nightmare hellscape that the manosphere and incels want you to think it is. [bold added]

The good "doctor" notes elsewhere that many of the people peddling such nonsense want to push something sketchy, and that encouraging fear and insecurity is a big part of how they do that.

The debunking of "the science" here is worth noting, as it reminds me of something I am fond of saying when anti-vaccine nonsense rears its ugly, brainless head.

Said debunking begins thus:

All of it, like the whole 80/20 or 10/58 (where the f--k did THAT come from?) thing, or the 6-6-6 "rule", these all fall apart if you actually look at the numbers, because none of them actually line up with reality. If any of these were actually true, we'd be seeing it everywhere -- hordes of single men watching helplessly as the towering Vikings of the top 10-20% were walking around with their harems. Except they aren't, and we actually do have the numbers.

This reminds me of two things: (1) I like to say Where are all the dead bodies? when I hear nonsense to the effect that the covid vaccines are deadly, and (2) I can remember a time when I was young that such drivel about dating sure seemed like it could be true.

There are a couple of lessons here off the top of my head. First, don't take "scientific" claims of doom at face value. At least try checking them, guided by taking their implications seriously. (2) Consider the idea that, in our awful culture, many people are inundated by seriously wrong BS, to the point that they are likely to give some of it credence, and should be treated with empathy. Otherwise, "Where are all the dead bodies?" or "Where are the Vikings and their harems?" might simply make you sound like a jerk and cost you a chance to help someone else out, and thereby incrementally improve your own world.

I like to think I'm good at the first, but I'll admit I could stand some work on the second.

-- CAV

Trump Socialism in the Defense Bill

At Reason, Veronique de Rugy rightly takes Republicans to task for sneakily doing what the Democratic Socialists of America at least have the decency to be open about, reagrding government stakes in private companies:

As Cato's Tad DeHaven notes, "The seven nonbinding letters of intent would provide up to $874 million in CHIPS and Science Act research and development incentives." Remember when most Republicans were against the CHIPS Act passed under former President Joe Biden? I do. And remember when they claimed to care about fiscal responsibility?

How about opposing ownership stakes simply because the right may not always be in charge? An executive branch that can hand out ownership at its discretion has acquired a permanent power, and such powers outlive the people who establish them. Picture a future Democratic president inheriting 30 companies' worth of shareholder rights and the leverage that comes with these: board seats, emissions mandates, conditions bolted onto the next round of funding.

This is no paranoid fantasy. The Senate's defense bill would give the Pentagon its own equity portfolio, which means Congress may write the administration's practice into statute rather than kill it. The right is loading a gun and trusting that only its friends will hold it. LOL, as the young people say. [bold added]

Yes. Today's Republicans evidently don't appreciate points that one would have once thought obvious to them.

The rest is worth reading and includes a succinct reminder of why government ownership of companies is such a terrible idea.

The steep decline of the Republicans on economic issues is so startling that I'll spare de Rugy criticism for failing to ask By what right does the government own anything?

These people can't get even the easy stuff right, anymore.

-- CAV